Can I get help with a friendly debate?

[Underseer]

I'm having a friendly debate on another message board, and a fellow is insisting that there is no evidence that the Gospels were written by anyone other than those the Gospels were named for.

However, I seem to remember seeing claims otherwise around here. So, erm, what is the actual PROOF of this? Or is it just hearsay on both sides of this argument?

Also, we're arguing about WHEN the Gospels were written. He's suggesting a range of dates from 50 CE to 85 CE, which puts all the Gospels well within the lifespans of the claimed authors. Yet the dates I've seen around here tend to be much older than that. Is there proof for this?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

[Underseer]

Clarification: I said CE, but I am clueless about dating systems.

He is counting 50 years from Christ's birth, not death. Not sure which one CE is.

[Peter Kirby]

Here's an essay: Dating Early Christian Gospels (http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm) by Andrew Bernhard

best,
Peter Kirby

[Underseer]

Thanks. Now what about the authorship? Do I conceed that point?

[Peter Kirby]

To be clear, Bernhard in the essay above is arguing that "dating" the gospels, to anything more precise than a century or two, is not right.

On the question of the dating&authorship of the four gospels, Richard Carrier indicated to me a while ago that a comprehensive source from a skeptical perspective does not exist on the Internet (and may not exist in a single book either). But I can point you to a few more web resources.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Jesus: Sources (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html#sources)

Steven Carr: Matthew & Mark (http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm) and Luke and John (http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm).

Peter Kirby: Matthew (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html), Mark (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html), Luke (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html), and John (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html).

For the other side: Tektonics: Dates and authorship (http://tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Bernard Muller]

On the question of the dating&authorship of the four gospels, Richard Carrier indicated to me a while ago that a comprehensive source from a skeptical perspective does not exist on the Internet (and may not exist in a single book either).

Thank you Peter, thank you Richard.
But I put a lot of work on the dating and authorship of the gospels, and I am certainly skeptical, and it is available on the internet at:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html

Best regards, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

D'oh! Thanks for supplying that link Bernard! I had read that page before, just forgot.

(I will be reading your entire web site once I get a few other things taken care of. Sorry to keep you waiting.)

best,
Peter Kirby

[spin]

Originally posted by Underseer
Clarification: I said CE, but I am clueless about dating systems.

He is counting 50 years from Christ's birth, not death. Not sure which one CE is.

CE stands for "current era" or "common era".

Our dating system is based on a botched calculation for the birth of Jesus, so originally Jesus was thought to have been born in 1 AD, anno domini, the year of our lord. However, the birth stories make us believe that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died 4 years before that calculated birth of Jesus, so Jesus, if born at all, had to have been born at least five years before they say he was...

Now, this botched calculation has been used for well over a thousand years, bearing its implied dominance of xianity, which is of little interest to Jews, Muslims, Hindus or any other non-xian who has to deal with the common dating system and the slur to other religious positions implied in the naming conventions, BC = before christ.

We have a de facto dating system which is acknowledged with BCE and CE, but without the religious implications. It just means that where you once said BC you now say BCE (Before CE) and once AD but now CE, and the numbers stay the same.


spin

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
On the question of the dating&authorship of the four gospels, Richard Carrier indicated to me a while ago that a comprehensive source from a skeptical perspective...

I don't think there should be such a thing. If the evidence favors any particular authorship hypothesis, that should be "the skeptical perspective." Alternatively, if the evidence is unclear, there shouldn't be a single "skeptical perspective" at all, but rather various options that a skeptic could adopt.

To say otherwise is to put ideology before the facts, just like the apologists do.

However, we may do well to produce a collaborative and thorough summary of the usual arguments for and against traditional authorships, and their usual rebuttals (and shortcomings of those, if applicable). The closest I've seen to such a TalkOrigins-like resource is your EarlyChristianWritings, but there's too much apologetic BS online for any one site to debunk.

[Bernard Muller]

The closest I've seen to such a TalkOrigins-like resource is your EarlyChristianWritings, but there's too much apologetic BS online for any one site to debunk.

My site is not apologetic and I state my evidence (and lot of it!) front and center.
gospels internal & external evidence for dating (http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html)

However, I am issuing that post in order to flag two other pages I got on the topic, one about the authorship of GLuke (a woman from Roman Philippi, if you are interested):
authorship, origin, etc. about GLuke (http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appf.html)
And GJohn authorship, at the end of that page:
GJohn original gospel (http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html)
Of interest, this is the start of my mini web site on the long (around 25 years) making of GJohn, step by step:
GJohn, from original to canonical (http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html)

Best regards, Bernard

[rlogan]

Interesting stuff in there, Bernard.

P52. Yes. I must have forgotten that.

Hmph! I see anything from 110-150 on that scrap. Peter Kirby has it at 120-130. But since it's John then the last gospel is somewhere in there.

Don't know much about paleographic dating. But that scrap is just real juicy stuff.

I wonder about the possibility of dating it with carbon 14 or whatever...

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
My site is not apologetic....

Your site is fine. As is Vinnie's and that of several other posters here. However, there's no really big resource like the TO "Index to Creationist Claims" that just systematically presents all kinds of claims related to the New Testament and provides background for it with voluminous analysis and scholarly quotes/references.

Peter's website, ECW, comes within shooting range, but ultimately no single person can possibly analyze *pretty much everything* about the NT. And when there's a sea of nonsense and apologetics out there instead of real scholarship, this makes it hard to find anything without really extensive knowledge of the field. :(

Perhaps we need to start something like the EvoWiki (http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page) that everyone here could contribute to? That would kick some major rear, assuming it wasn't dominated by either conservative fundie inerrantist kooks or Jesus-mythers, and had at least 50% as many references.

P.S. The website link from your profile, http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ , appears to be dead. You might want to change that to your new Geo$hitties address. ;)

[spin]

Originally posted by rlogan
Interesting stuff in there, Bernard.

P52. Yes. I must have forgotten that.

Hmph! I see anything from 110-150 on that scrap. Peter Kirby has it at 120-130. But since it's John then the last gospel is somewhere in there.

I have talked about P52 (= Pap. Ryl. 457) before, noting that a much more recent analysis had been done on the fragment using a better knowledge of the scripts than was available seventy years ago and this dating is given as 170 CE +/- 25 years. (A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457, APF 35, 1989)

Naturally this study is of interest to no-one wanting to date P52 early, so you won't find it easily on the net.


spin

[Underseer]

Oooh, I would love a resource to use on those who insist the Bible is 100% literal and contains no allegory. I've gotten into scraps with them, but having never read the whole Bible, I'm a bit poorly armed. :)

[spin]

Originally posted by Underseer
Oooh, I would love a resource to use on those who insist the Bible is 100% literal and contains no allegory. I've gotten into scraps with them, but having never read the whole Bible, I'm a bit poorly armed. :)

All you need to do is go back through the archives here looking for the various contradiction threads and you might find quite a few ready-made barbs for the true fundamentalist.


spin

[rlogan]

I have talked about P52 (= Pap. Ryl. 457) before, noting that a much more recent analysis had been done on the fragment using a better knowledge of the scripts than was available seventy years ago and this dating is given as 170 CE +/- 25 years. (A. Schmidt, Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457, APF 35, 1989)

Naturally this study is of interest to no-one wanting to date P52 early, so you won't find it easily on the net.


spin


Thank you Spin. Yes, I didn't see this referenced anywhere. Gosh, that study has only been out now for fifteen years.

So we roll out Papias now, and duck at the same time in anticipation of incoming artillery from the spin arsenal...

[spin]

So we roll out Papias now

I do wonder of the value and relevance of Papias, who we are told was "a friend of Polycarp", a martyr from the middle of the 2nd c., though, we are told, lived a long life and knew Ignatius at the beginning of the 2nd c. Well, you might not be surprised that I don't go along with these hopeful dating indications. I don't find the dating of Ignatius convincing and I do find that a dating locus around the middle of the century is more credible for Polycarp.

Anyway, here's what Papias said which is relevant here (in italics in its setting in Eusebius):

Eusebius H.E. III.39.14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John.
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

[The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make of it what you will. What is said about Matthew clearly bears no relation to our Matt, and what is said about Mark doesn't seem to be reflective of a gospel which seems oriented to Greek speaking dwellers in a Roman world. Both texts lean toward the use of LXX citations rather than from Hebrew texts. So, what can one say about the veracity of Papias?


spin

[Sven]

I'm having a friendly debate on another message board, and a fellow is insisting that there is no evidence that the Gospels were written by anyone other than those the Gospels were named for.

Just curious: Does he have any evidence that the Gospels were written by them? After all, he is the one making a positive claim...

[The Evil One]

Just curious: Does he have any evidence that the Gospels were written by them? After all, he is the one making a positive claim...
Well, we don't know anything about the four guys who wrote them except the various legends that attached themselves to their names after the Gospels were given those names, e.g. that Matthew and John were disciples, that Luke was Paul's companion, blah blah. Basically these men are just names and we know nothing about them.... we don't even know wheter they were one person, or a team, or a community...

[Sven]

Well, we don't know anything about the four guys who wrote them except the various legends that attached themselves to their names after the Gospels were given those names, e.g. that Matthew and John were disciples, that Luke was Paul's companion, blah blah. Basically these men are just names and we know nothing about them.... we don't even know wheter they were one person, or a team, or a community...
Yes, I know this. That's the reason why I asked if the guy Underseer is discussing with has given any evidence for his opinion - instead of asking to substantiate the negative statement that we don't know who wrote the gospels.